Following the Wrong Compass: The True State of the Union

Following the Wrong Compass: The True State of the Union

About two years ago, I gave a speech here with
the title "Four Points of the Compass: Restoring America's Sense of
Direction." I would like to begin with a review of America's
response to that compass.

As
some of you recall, the attempt was to condense the most essential,
most indispensable aspects of America's founding principles into a
practical tool--easy to remember, easy to apply. Much is said about
the ways America was meant to be, and what the Founders had in
mind. But usually it is couched in very loose terms, partly because
fewer and fewer people these days take the trouble of actually
reading what the Founders have written.

Most
disappointingly, Members of Congress who actually take an oath upon
the Constitution of the United States give us speeches day after
day, and television interviews night after night, revealing in the
process that if they ever read the Constitution, it was a long,
long time ago. Of course, they might simply have a different
edition.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMPASS

In
any event, trying to sum up the most essential principles in a
manageable number gave me the idea two years ago of choosing
four--because a compass has four points and, like a compass, these
principles have provided America's bearings. So I proposed the rule
of law--always point North--individual rights, the guarantee of
property, and a common American identity for all of us.

In
these two years, the "Four Points" have been made part of the
Congressional Record and printed in many places: as a
Heritage Lecture, in Imprimis, in many newspapers and
periodicals, as well as in Representative American
Speeches. The Republican National Committee decided to publish
a version of it as the cover story in Rising Tide, and it
became the foundation of the book America's 30 Years War: Who
Is Winning? We have held panel discussions on Capitol Hill and
town meetings around the country. There seems to be general
agreement about their validity, and opposition comes only from
those who have a bone to pick both with America's Founders and with
the U.S. Constitution itself.

Town
meetings, and the ongoing conversation with the American people via
radio and television talk shows in the past two years, have
persuaded us that this is a good path to follow. People find it
helpful as a tool, not only in debates, but also for evaluating
public policy.

Here
is how it works. Every time somebody proposes a new law, a new
statute, or an executive order, you ask whether it passes muster
when held against the standard of the Four Points. The answers are
easy, because either they do or they don't. If they don't, then
they have no place in the United States of America. Without that
compass, what would make us American?

Rule of Law. Taking the
points one by one: Everybody seems to agree that the rule
of law is a good thing. Alas, most people don't quite know what
that means. One must read Article VI of the Constitution, which
says, "This Constitution...shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
Then the proposition becomes clear.

Individual Rights.
Individual rights are more problematic because one of the
developments during the past 30 years was the proliferation of all
sorts of "rights" which masquerade as individual rights even though
they are, in truth, group rights. In other words, these rights are
claimed by certain people because of their membership in a
particular group. Of course, the Constitution does not permit any
such thing. Advocates of group rights have learned how to dress up
their demands as individual rights, and it is alarming how often
they get away with it.

Guarantee of Property.
Yet the most troubling for all critics of the Founding is the third
one: the guarantee of property. It is amazing how strong an
emotional reaction it draws, which really proves what the English
already knew when they wrote the Magna Carta in the year 1215: that
the guarantee of property and the guarantee of liberty are joined
at the hip. You either have both or have neither. The absolute
ownership of property is such a troubling idea for the other side
that even the most benevolent among them is unable to stomach
it.

Common Identity. The
common American identity is something to which, again, many pay lip
service while making the greatest effort to do away with it. One
person who, to my surprise, recently paid lip service to it was the
President last night, toward the end of his State of the Union
speech. Of course, one wished for an opportunity to ask him when he
was going to issue the next executive order to set women against
men, black against white, children against their parents, and South
Americans against Europeans, because that is certainly what his
administration has been doing in spades ever since 1993.

THE OTHER COMPASS

By
now, it must be clear that there is another compass in our midst,
and perhaps the time has come to look at what that other compass
is. It, too, has four points. Its North Star is the pursuit of
social justice; instead of individual rights, it promotes group
rights; instead of the guarantee of property, it advocates
redistribution through entitlements; and in place of our common
American identity, it favors what it calls multiculturalism.

I
think we need to examine these four points and try to understand
what they mean. We need to do this because of something the
President said in his second inaugural address.

On
January 20, 1997, Mr. Clinton called for a new government for the
new century. Given that, in the entire history of our nation, the
only previous call for a new government was issued in the
Declaration of Independence, I thought then (and I certainly think
now) that, on this occasion, we must take the President seriously.
There is also every reason to think that such a new government
would be guided by that "other" compass.

Social Justice. What of
its four points? First, social justice. The phrase sounds
good--always has, always will. Social justice, after all, is
justice, isn't it? Well, the Preamble of the Constitution speaks
about the establishment of justice. Does "social" add anything to
that? If you look up F. A. Hayek, you find that he lists about 168
nouns that have acquired the qualifier "social" to the detriment of
each and every one of them.

But
let's take social justice at face value just for the moment. Is
anyone willing to define what it actually means? To date, I have
not been able to find a single person who can do that, because it
means something different every day. (I have been offering a reward
of $1,000 to anyone who can propose a lasting definition.)

The
Constitution, on the other hand, is the same--day in and day out.
There is nothing ambiguous about phrases like "Congress shall make
no law" or "The right of the people...shall not be infringed" or
"All legislative Powers...shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States." These are finite statements. For social justice to
be a plausible replacement for the rule of law, it would have to
offer comparable consistency, but of course it cannot.

It
is almost painful to watch critics of the Constitution wrestling
with this problem, desperately trying to claim that the rule of law
and the pursuit of social justice can indeed live side by side. I
submit they cannot and intend to demonstrate it.

Group Rights. Group
rights, of course, do not require too much explanation. Again, the
Constitution of the United States offers absolutely no foundation
for any kind of group right. In fact, it knows nothing about
groups, only about individual citizens, or "The People." There is
nothing in between. Thus, every group right is in fact
illegitimate.

The
tragedy is that not only judges and the executive branch, but
Congress, too, participated in the enactment of various statutes
that confer rights upon groups. Worse yet, a Republican
presidential candidate, Senator Bob Dole, takes great pride in
having engineered the Americans with Disabilities Act--one of the
more recent creations of group rights.

Some
of you may say, "Don't disabled Americans have rights?" Of course
they do: exactly the same rights as every other American. They
don't have rights because they are disabled; they have rights
because they are Americans. You can substitute anything else for
"disabled" and come to the same conclusion. There is all the
difference between pointing to certain people and saying, "These
Americans have not been given their full constitutional due."
That's one thing. It is quite another to isolate a group and say,
"We must give these people their own special rights."

Redistributionism. And
what could be more different than the guarantee of property on one
side and redistribution on the other? Property is everything we
own--the shoes you wear, the salary you make. The other compass
calls for its redistribution, because certain people are "entitled"
to it.

Here
is another word: entitlement. Is there anything in the Constitution
of the United States that entitles anybody to the fruits of the
labor of another person? For that is what entitlement
means--nothing less. The only way a person may be entitled to
another person's possessions is if we disregard the
Constitution.

Multiculturalism. And so
we come to the last point: multiculturalism. If the suggestion is
that we should look beyond our own borders and not merely read
American literature or look solely at American paintings, then I
would say every decent school for a very, very long time has taught
world history and world literature and world everything. We really
didn't need a multicultural movement for that.

If,
on the other hand, the idea is that everything has the same value,
and that those who have not produced literature should be given
literature and the rest of us be required to study it in order to
give the appearance that every nation has literature worth reading,
that is something entirely different.

Multiculturalism claims to celebrate our
diversity, so here is another question: What is there to celebrate?
We don't celebrate that we have arms and fingers, or other things
we are born with. If you look around just this room, we have a lot
to celebrate right here, because we are all different. It is just
one of those nonsensical things, except that--while it is easy to
make fun of it all--for many, it is deadly serious. It is serious
for us, too, because this compass is likely to guide the 70 percent
of Americans who give the President that approval rating.

If
that compass is something to be taken seriously, we have to give it
a name. Why not call the original one--the rule of law, individual
rights, the guarantee of property, and common American
identity--the "American way?" That is a fair designation because
these are the essentials that define America.

A NAME FOR THE OTHER COMPASS:
SOCIALISM

How
do we find a name for the other compass? Let us work backwards.
Multiculturalism is really another form of redistribution, only it
is cultural goods being redistributed. Redistribution grows out of
group rights, because certain groups are entitled to the fruits of
redistribution whereas others are not. And, of course, the whole
idea of group rights grows out of the search for, and the pursuit
of, social justice--whatever that means.

So
here we are, looking for a name. How should one call this doctrine,
this compass? "Multi" does not suggest an all-purpose label, and
"entitlement compass" just doesn't sound good. "Group compass" does
not make much sense. How about going back to its North Star: social
justice?

Of
course, justice is something that the English already contemplated
in the Magna Carta and that, certainly, the Framers have
established in the Constitution. We need to focus on the first word
in this two-word construct. Perchance we could make a noun of the
adjective. Words ending in "ism" are often used for political
programs. If we add this to the adjective, "social-ism" comes out
as the logical designation for this compass.

Are
we in trouble! We will be advised immediately that this is not
going anywhere--just look at where Joe McCarthy ended! But what if
he didn't go about it the right way, because socialism was hurled
at people as an accusation, as a pejorative, derogatory term? In
any event, as an inflammatory word?

Of
course, then we were engaged in a war--cold most of the time, hot
some of the time--against the Soviet Union, and we saw the Soviet
Union as the representative of socialism. Even so, McCarthy came to
grief. And now, when the Soviet Union is gone, most would think it
ridiculous to invoke socialism. But what if the problem is the way
we think of the word, and the way we look at what socialism is?

That
is really where I would like to get your ear today, and your active
help in the future.

Socialism, I believe, is the appropriate,
scholarly, utterly unemotional designation of a grand philosophical
idea in Western civilization. Ever since Descartes started thinking
about thinking, and other French philosophers followed in the 18th
century, and then Germans picked it up where the French had left
off, socialism has been in the making. For a long time, then,
socialism has been with us as "the other grand idea" of Western
civilization, and it will remain with us as long as there is an
"us."

There is nothing derogatory about it, and
there is nothing "red" about it. Socialism is an idea about
interpreting the world, and charting the future, that has had the
benefit of some of the best minds in the history of the planet and
has held--and continues to hold--tremendous appeal to vast numbers
of people. It deserves to be taken seriously, and it needs to be
engaged on philosophical grounds. In every sense of the word, it
holds the opposite view of everything this country was built
on.

PRINCIPLES VS. AGENDAS

The
"Four Points of the Compass" presented to you two years ago
represented a set of principles. Our American way is built on
principles. These principles were laid down to create a set of
conditions within which the citizens of this country can pursue
their individual happiness--not social justice, their individual
happiness-least hindered, with the fewest possible obstacles in
their path.

Thus, principles create conditions which
are simply there as a tent under which people are safe and secure
in their lives--their livelihoods, their possessions--and are able
to do their best.

Socialism, as the four points of its
compass demonstrate, has no principles. It has an agenda. The
pursuit of social justice is an agenda. The creation of group
rights is a continuation of that agenda. Redistributing the fruits
of society's combined labors is an agenda.

This
is extremely important to realize because we have become very, very
imprecise in our use of words. We ought not to speak of the
legislative goals of the American side as an "agenda," because
voters can say, "Well, he has this agenda and she has that agenda,
and it's my right to choose which agenda I like." I don't believe
that the American way calls for an agenda. There may be specific
legislative initiatives, and there may be needs of the nation to be
met, but I don't believe that the Framers gave us an agenda. They
gave us specific principles, articulated as laws, within which we
are free to pursue to our benefit--and to no one else's
detriment--whatever is our life's dream.

So
first of all, we have to realize that there are principles on one
side and an agenda on the other. Principles provide the floor under
your feet. An agenda pulls you in a certain direction. One is
guided by principles; one is driven by an agenda.
I am just trying to say this in as many ways as I possibly can.

Socialism cannot coexist with the rule of
law because the most important aspect of the rule of law is its
consistency. Yes, the Constitution may be amended through a very
specific process, and that's an important aspect of it. But its
fundamental tenets--let's make no mistake about that--will never
change because, if we amend those, the result will no longer bear
any resemblance to the Constitution of the United States.

Thus, the rule of law functions as a
constant, whereas the pursuit of social justice demands that we
change the law every day in order to accomplish the agenda--which
also changes every day.

WHAT IS SOCIALISM?

I
submit that the label "socialism" is the one tool we possess that
we have not used, and that could be our salvation. Not only because
truth in labeling always helps: Let us not think of it as labeling,
but as truth. The truth always helps, especially against an
adversary that always runs from the truth. To use the word
effectively, we have to understand what socialism is and what it is
not.

Socialism is not red or any other single
color. The Soviet Union was but an episode in socialism's 300-year
history. It was a long one, a troublesome one, but goodness knows
Nazi Germany was most troublesome even though that lasted only 12
years. Eventually, it passed away; the Soviet Union passed away;
Mao Tse-Tung passed away. Even Castro won't live forever.

All
these have been episodes. These are not our true adversaries. Our
adversary is The Idea: this intoxicating idea that is able to dress
up in local colors and plug into the deepest yearnings of any
nation.

In
America, it did so in spades about 30 years ago. It found all the
hot buttons of Americans, so there are millions of decent Americans
today who honestly believe that the socialist agenda they have
signed onto has American roots.

Back
to colors: Socialism may have been red in the Soviet Union, but it
was black in Italy, where it was called the Fascist Party of
Mussolini, Mussolini's personal version of the Italian Socialist
Party from which he had been expelled. It was brown in Germany
under the National Socialists, but currently, in the same Germany,
it is green. It wears blue at the United Nations.

Want
more colors? If you really want a Rainbow Coalition, look at
socialism around the world. So, first, let us not get stuck on
color.

Second, please let us not get stuck on a
particular regime. There is all this confusion about socialism,
communism, fascism. But we will know how to make head or tail of
them once we realize that they all study the same books.

Fascism was simply Mussolini's version for
Italy, having nothing whatever to do with the National Socialist
German Workers party--Hitler's party--which ruled Germany during
the years of the Third Reich. It was Stalin who thought it might be
just a little uncomfortable and embarrassing for the Soviet
Union--the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics--to have Hitler,
too, designated as a socialist. So he ordered everyone, including
his American agents--you remember, the ones that McCarthy was so
dastardly as to expose--to start referring to Hitler's Germany as
"fascist."

It
never was. It was a national socialist regime, and to
point to minute differences between it and the Soviet Union doesn't
make practical sense, because the Soviet Union had 70-plus years to
develop its ways. Hitler's Germany existed only for six years in
peacetime. After that, it was engaged in a world war. Even during
those six years, it was preparing for war, so the various
deviations from orthodox socialism really should not cloud the
issue.

We
have to remember also that Karl Marx already, in the Communist
Manifesto of 1848, had differentiated among no fewer than seven
versions of socialism, all of which he rejected in favor of his
own, which he called Communism.

Communism is nothing other than the castle
at the end of the climb for all socialists. And please believe me:
There is no difference between this socialist and that socialist,
and social democrat, and democratic socialist, and progressive, and
liberal, and "people for the third way." We are given different
labels all the time.

It
is all socialism, and all of it leads to communism--yes, communism,
and let us not be afraid of that word any longer. It will be a
glorious time, we are told, for humanity when communism is
established and when social justice will have come to every man,
woman, and child in the world. For that is what communism is: One
World in which social justice has been accomplished.

TWO CONFLICTING IDEAS

Other issues tend to be confusing as well.
Generically, the American way can also be called the Anglo-American
way of interpreting the world and charting the future. By the same
token, the opposite view may be called "Franco-Germanic."

To
begin with, only these four countries have engaged in systematic
thinking about these matters over the centuries. Individuals from
other countries have made contributions, but only in these four
countries--England, France, America, and Germany--have there been
schools of political philosophy.

The
four schools resulted in two conflicting ideas. They are in
conflict with regard to morality, law, and economic principles--in
conflict all the way. Thus, the divider has always been the English
Channel and not the Iron Curtain. Of course, the English Channel
has been there all the time, whereas the Iron Curtain was a very
temporary fixture.

If
that is true, however, how is it possible that France and England
were allies in both world wars? It is not difficult to understand.
Philosophically, as the books in our libraries confirm, the
permanent alliance is between France and Germany. But, naturally,
when France is attacked and is unable to defend itself--as has
happened throughout this century--they reach for the people who are
willing to die for them.

And
those were the British and the Americans. The alliance lasted as
long as the French were in need. Read French philosophers; listen
to French socialists and communists who are daily guests on our
college campuses today. Like the Germans, they preach the socialist
gospel. The exception is Voltaire. He admired the British political
system, and when he openly said so in France, the authorities
issued a warrant for his arrest.

Let
us, then, rid ourselves of these confusing images and understand
that these two gigantic ideas have been, are, and will be fighting
it out to the end.

How
does this affect the state of our union?

Last
night, the President would have had you believe that it was just
wonderful. It might be a matter of your vantage point, I think.
Certainly, the Dow Jones has never been higher, but don't let that
fool you. Having lost the university decades ago, we then lost the
high schools, and now we have lost the entire educational
establishment, all the way down to the day-care center. Our
children are being brought up to be socialists--nothing else.

Our
media are manned and "womanned" mostly by socialists. If you doubt
that, just remember that last week, not a single network carried
the charges against the President on the Senate floor, but
yesterday, when the President's case was to be presented, all
network programs were preempted.

Congress accommodates a growing number of
Representatives and Senators who think nothing of inventing entire
new passages for the Constitution, or reveal themselves as nothing
more than members of the phalanx that surrounds the executive
branch. United States Senators have taken to announcing their
verdict before, or right after, taking an oath to be impartial
jurors.

GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT FREEDOM

If
we really mean business, we have to use our chief asset. Yes,
socialism is a great asset. We tend to engage in lengthy
discussions about esoteric matters like high taxes, low taxes, big
government, and small government. I say esoteric because they are
not tangible. What is high? What is low? What is big? What is
small?

Instead of interminable debates, which our
side loses almost all the time, let us look Senator Kennedy,
Senator Wellstone, Senator Boxer--the list goes on--in the eye and
say, "What you are advocating, Senator (or Mr. President, or Mrs.
President), is covered by a very simple word, and the word is
`socialism.' If you think it's great, why don't you tell us more
about it? And why don't you tell us why you believe in it?"

"Are
you calling me a socialist, sir? I demand an apology." "No, sir, I
am not calling you anything. You are proposing a socialist
agenda."

Isn't that a great deal simpler than
trying to explain why it is not mean-spirited to oppose the next
federal education program? Isn't it a great opportunity to say, "My
position on the issue derives from America's founding principles;
would you tell the country what your position derives from?"

Unless we find it in our hearts to engage
in this type of dialogue, and unless we find the courage to fight
the elections in 2000--possibly our last chance to avert a
long-term disaster--by calling the compass of the other side what
it really is, I don't think we should blame others, least of all
the American people, for losing that election.

Millions of ordinary Americans appear to
have accepted, and to be promoting, the socialist agenda. There is
every reason to believe that many minds would be changed if they
were brought face-to-face with socialism as the doctrine they are
following and advocating.

We
must explain that this is not "hate speech," but simply the
appropriate designation. If we de-demonize and re-legitimize the
word "socialism" and reintroduce it to its appropriate place, I
guarantee the outcome is going to be different.

So
we at the Center for the American Founding are going to issue a
call to all good people, especially those who care deeply, such as
yourselves, to engage in retreats and seminars and discussions so
that our own side can understand anew what socialism is, and what
it is not.

Once
we do that, we shall never look back.

Balint Vazsonyi is Senior Fellow at the Potomac
Foundation and Director of the Center for the American
Founding.